# America poised for world domination? Bush and Kerry cousins?

Who brought the crazy magnet?

Locrian said:
Who brought the crazy magnet?
hahaha... you're funny... i saw this comment coming :rofl:

believe what you want... but don't write it off for other people... your comments are pointless and unecessary... you don't think i know how ridiculous this perspective really is to most people?... and yes, you are most people... so too bad... lol :rofl:

Lol!@#$!#$!@!!!!!@!! :rofl: :rofl:

Just a quote to backup outsider:

The Bankers who control the money at the top are able to approve or disapprove large loans to large and successful corporations to the extent that refusal of a loan will bring about a reduction in the price that that Corporation's stock sells for on the market. After depressing the price, the Bankers' agents buy large blocks of the stock, after which the sometimes multi-million dollar loan is approved, the stock rises, and is then sold for a profit. In this manner billions of dollars are made with which to buy more stock. This practice is so refined today that the Federal Reserve Board need only announce to the newspapers an increase or decrease in their "rediscount rate" to send stocks up and down as they wish. Using this method since 1913, the Bankers and their agents have purchased secret or open control of almost every large corporation in America. Using that control, they then force the corporations to borrow huge sums from their banks so that corporation earnings are siphoned off in the form of interest to the banks. This leaves little as actual "profits" which can be paid as dividends and explains why stock prices are often depressed, while the banks reap billions in interest from corporate loans. In effect, the bankers get almost all of the profits, while individual stockholders are left holding the bag.

Art
loseyourname said:
There is a very good reason that everybody sold all those shares that one day: margin buying. It was a rampant process in the late 20s. The way it works is simple: you put up, say, 10% of the cost of your shares, and some firm puts up the remaining 90%. As long as the stock goes up, you make far more money than you otherwise would have, because you can buy far more shares.
True but also remember the amount of margin allowed is based on your assets. If the value of your assets fall close to the level of the amount of money borrowed, if you do not put up extra collateral, there will be a margin call and your stock will be sold out from under your feet by the broker to cover the margin.
loseyourname said:
The problem is, when the share prices start to go down, you cannot afford to hold on wait for a recovery. If the price goes down only 10%, you've lost your entire investment. If you paid for the shares yourself, the share would need to go all the way to $0 for this to happen. Nobody worried about this in the late 20s because stock prices were consistently doing nothing but going up. They simply assumed it would continue forever. But guess what? As soon as a downward fluctuation of at least 10% takes place, the owners of shares bought recently on margin have no choice but to sell, or risk not being able to pay back the creditor who put up funds for them and going into default (which would likely mean they are never able to buy on margin again). Once these people begin selling, the fluctuation increases, until all marginal buyers are forced to sell. At that point, the downward turn is so acute that a panic occurs; everyone starts to sell, until suddenly nobody is willing to buy any new shares and the stocks are virtually worthless. If confidence was so high then why did stocks fall to a level that resulted in so many margin calls it instigated a crash? It is certainly not impossible that the crash was instigated deliberately. loseyourname said: Think about the hypothesis you are putting forth, outsider. It's not like the crash was caused by a small group of people who owned thousands of shares each suddenly selling them all in a coordinated effort. The crash was caused by almost every single small investor out there selling all of their shares. A 'coordinated' effort to effect this kind of occurence would be a coordinated efforts of millions of people, most of whom have never even met each other. Exactly how is such a thing supposed to be carried out? You do not need to own any shares much less thousands to instigate a crash. In fact if you are looking to make money it is essential that you do not own any shares. All you have to do is 'short' the stock in the realization that investors have already borrowed to their limit. In other words sell shares you do not own in the belief that you will be able to honour the contract by buying the shares at a future time at a lower price than your selling price. This does not require millions of people and has indeed been done by one man in relatively recent times when in 1992 Britain was forced to drop out of the ERM (the precursor to the euro) by a single currency trader George Soros who made$2 billion profit at the expense of the British gov't in just a couple of days. He achieved this by shorting the British currency and causing a panic This despite the British gov't spending billions trying to support their currency.

Last edited by a moderator:
Locrian said:
Lol!@#$!#$!@!!!!!@!! :rofl: :rofl:
indeed! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: protector of the secret?

Burnsys said:
Just a quote to backup outsider:

The Bankers who control the money at the top are able to approve or disapprove large loans to large and successful corporations to the extent that refusal of a loan will bring about a reduction in the price that that Corporation's stock sells for on the market. After depressing the price, the Bankers' agents buy large blocks of the stock, after which the sometimes multi-million dollar loan is approved, the stock rises, and is then sold for a profit. In this manner billions of dollars are made with which to buy more stock. This practice is so refined today that the Federal Reserve Board need only announce to the newspapers an increase or decrease in their "rediscount rate" to send stocks up and down as they wish. Using this method since 1913, the Bankers and their agents have purchased secret or open control of almost every large corporation in America. Using that control, they then force the corporations to borrow huge sums from their banks so that corporation earnings are siphoned off in the form of interest to the banks. This leaves little as actual "profits" which can be paid as dividends and explains why stock prices are often depressed, while the banks reap billions in interest from corporate loans. In effect, the bankers get almost all of the profits, while individual stockholders are left holding the bag.
not to mention ENRON... chapter 11 protection baby!!! thats like the bulletproof vest... bad debt? write it off to the govt... tax payers will split the bill... gotta love that

"During the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt revalued the dollar to 35 per troy ounce (112.53 cents per gram) of gold. This represented a drop in the value of the U.S. dollar. It fell to only 890 mg (13.7 grains) of gold. The U.S. dollar had thus been devalued almost 41% by government decree." - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_American_dollar

So, this can be used to gain more money of course. Suppose you have loads of money, then buy as much gold as you're worth, then the money's value decreases 41% (Including all the lower classes money) and then sell the gold back. That way, you haven't lost any value, while everyone who didn't do what you did did lose value. Of course, you'd have to know that FDR was gonna devalue the dollar, but if you're a mason, and he's a mason, then there's the answer.

how fast did the initial change in momentum occur?
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1527.html
pretty darn fast.

As far as changing from the gold standard, that was a shot in the dark on my part and I didn't really look anything up (i was tired), but now that I looked it up, the USA switched from gold backing to fiat in around the 70's if I researched correctly.
ok, well I'll agree that this whole idea about the GD is pretty far fetched, but thats not the point I'm trying to make. I'm trying to consider the possibility of freemasonry existing or not. In any investigation, if you only have small tidbits of info and no real hard evidance, all you need is a theory to unite all the tidbits. When investigating, all the info isn't givin to you as if you're reading a book, you have to put it all together, and there is a lot more tidbits to consider than all the ones covered in this thread.

Last edited:
Jonny_trigonometry said:
have you heard of the hindsight bias? looking back, it's easy to see that the market was inflated, but during those times, nobody knew where it would level off, or slow down, or what not, but surely not drastically collapse all in one day.
well YEAH! That's WHY. IT. HAPPENED. BECAUSE NO ONE PREDICTED IT WOULD! Otherwise they never would've gotten it to that level in the first place.

Smurf said:
well YEAH! That's WHY. IT. HAPPENED. BECAUSE NO ONE PREDICTED IT WOULD! Otherwise they never would've gotten it to that level in the first place.
You're correct, but I think you're getting the hindsight bias and the ability to predict the future (clairyovance) confused. The hindsight bias is your bias of your ego being able to figure out problems that happened in the past. Everyone favors their ability to figure out problems that happened in the past.

If I gave you an anagram like "chamusat" and also said that the answer is "mustache", and I asked you how long you think it would take you to figure it out, you would probably give me an answer that would be less than the actual time that it wouldn've taken you.

Have you ever said "I could have thought of that! it's so simple!" ? thats the hindsight bias.

If I was able to organize a massive sell off by running a secret club with loyal followers (who possess most of the money in the stock market), I'd rely on people's inability to predict the future. If you're a regular non-mason stock broker who can only react to this, and you see your stocks start to fall extremely fast, what would you do? would you assume that the past dictates the future and let them fall further, and have to explain to all your clients that you lost thier money? or would you make the same assumption and cut your losses? or would you sit there like a bump on a log, and not make any assumptions? People do try to predict the future, thats what the market is all about, and although they aren't 100% correct, they are better than 50% correct, otherwise the market wouldn't increase at all.

You might be thinkin' that I think I've got everything figured out. Well, I thank you for your corrections that I've been misinterpreting (especially about the dollar bill, and the latin translations), hehe I even took 2 years of latin! I thought I had that one figured out, well I guess not. I assure you that I'm far from figuring this thing out. If it weren't for their pride (putting symbols everywhere) I would dismiss most of this conspiracy stuff, but it helps to expose them.

Oh yeah, when I first mentioned the hindsight bias, I was using it in referance to your explaination of how the market crashed. You said it was inflated (I agree), but the people of that time didn't know it was inflated. We are looking at a problem that happenend in the past and using our bias (based on our knowledge of what happened afterwards) to determine if the market was over-valued at that point in history.

Last edited:
Jonny_trigonometry said:
If I gave you an anagram like "chamusat" and also said that the answer is "mustache", and I asked you how long you think it would take you to figure it out, you would probably give me an answer that would be less than the actual time that it wouldn've taken you.
So basically you're saying that I think I'm better than I really am?
If I was able to organize a massive sell off by running a secret club with loyal followers (who possess most of the money in the stock market), I'd rely on people's inability to predict the future. If you're a regular non-mason stock broker who can only react to this, and you see your stocks start to fall extremely fast, what would you do? would you assume that the past dictates the future and let them fall further, and have to explain to all your clients that you lost thier money? or would you make the same assumption and cut your losses? or would you sit there like a bump on a log, and not make any assumptions? People do try to predict the future, thats what the market is all about, and although they aren't 100% correct, they are better than 50% correct, otherwise the market wouldn't increase at all.
... WHAT? That doesn't make any sense!

1. If you possess most of the money in the stock market, any decrease will hurt you more than anyone else, because YOU OWN MOST OF IT!

2. Hindsight has nothing to do with the stock market crash! Once it started people panicked and started selling, that increased the rate of decline. It started because someone said to themselves "Hey! This can't keep going up forever, so I think I'll cut my profits and get out while it's safe" Eventually enough people sold enough stocks in 1 day that the stock market stopped rising. When it stopped rising some people got scared and started to sell. Then it started going down, so more people got really scared and they sold.... See how that works? You don't need to have a degree in economics to figure it out, it's basic economics and history today. It wasn't caused by any conspiracy. It was inevitable.

Art
Jonny_trigonometry said:
If I gave you an anagram like "chamusat" and also said that the answer is "mustache", and I asked you how long you think it would take you to figure it out, you would probably give me an answer that would be less than the actual time that it wouldn've taken you.
I'd have said I'd never have worked it out as chamusat isn't an anagram of mustache. :rofl:
SMURF said:
Hindsight has nothing to do with the stock market crash! Once it started people panicked and started selling, that increased the rate of decline. It started because someone said to themselves "Hey! This can't keep going up forever, so I think I'll cut my profits and get out while it's safe" Eventually enough people sold enough stocks in 1 day that the stock market stopped rising. When it stopped rising some people got scared and started to sell. Then it started going down, so more people got really scared and they sold.... See how that works? You don't need to have a degree in economics to figure it out, it's basic economics and history today. It wasn't caused by any conspiracy. It was inevitable.
Equally questionable for the reasons I gave in my earlier post

Last edited by a moderator:
Art said:
I'd have said I'd never have worked it out as chamusat isn't an anagram of mustache. :rofl:
Nor would I, because I've never spelled it Mustache.
Equally questionable for the reasons I gave in my earlier post
Yet there is no evidence for it. There are detailed analysis' of the stock market crash in any University or Public Library, and untill you present a thesis on which to base your theory that it was planned it's still just wishfull thinking.

Art
Smurf said:
Nor would I, because I've never spelled it Mustache.
Unless you are also logged on here as Johnny_Trigonometry then I never said you did.

SMURF said:
Yet there is no evidence for it. There are detailed analysis of the stock market crash in any University or Public Library, and untill you present a thesis on which to base your theory that it was planned it's still just wishfull thinking.
I don't have a theory it was planned. I am simply saying it could have been done deliberately. By definition somebody or some organisation has to have started the selling to create the domino effect otherwise the crash would never have happened. It is their motives which are open to questioning but I don't see how it is possible to ever know what these motives were.

Last edited by a moderator:
Art said:
I don't have a theory it was planned. I am simply saying it could have been done deliberately.
Okay. I agree with you.

russ_watters
Mentor
Locrian said:
Who brought the crazy magnet?
Seriously. Jeez, even I am at a loss to respond to that post.

Jonny_trigonometry said:
ok, I'm spilling the beans.
*snip*
eh, I'm gonna go to bed now.
Sorry that was too long to repost or even go through point by point.

The Illuminati was the Bavarian Illuminati and they originated from within the Masons. It was the Illuminati who decided that they as enlightened intellectuals would be best suited to govern. They also decided that the unenlightened and less intelligent would not understand or accept the right path for progress so they should remain secretive and hidden. So the Illuminati was created. They never reached outside of Bavaria. Most of their intrigues were simple blackmail and racketeering for the purpose of influencing the outcome of local politics, though their designs were to eventually gain more influence far and wide.
The year 1776 is as Smurf stated the year that the Declaration of Independance was signed, hence it's place on US currency, but it was also supposedly the year that the Jesuits disbanded the Bavarian Illuminati and Adam Weishaupt, it's leader, was exiled hence the 1776/Illuminati connection. Some really out there conspiracy theorists believe that old paintings of Weishaupt and Washington look strikingly similar and that Weishaupt may have found his way to the US and thieved Washington's indentity. Hence the US/Illuminati connection. This is really quite outlandish an idea to swallow though ofcourse.
The ideas that the Illuminati existed before the Bavarian Illuminati and still exists comes mainly from the fact that there have been multiple societies that have used the term "Illuminated" to name their society or describe themselves. They have been connected with a very early secret society called Roshiniya which translates to Illuminated Ones, the Hashishans, the Rosecrucians, and more based almost exclusively on etemology.
In short you may want to do some more research and be more critical of your sources.

Last edited:
russ_watters said:
Seriously. Jeez, even I am at a loss to respond to that post.
The lack of a response and the tendency to attempt to band together with an identity, who has said nothing but made an irrational judgment, displays the mental barriers of even intelligent individuals. Your inability to see the possibility is what you and others should question. You may have never lived in a major city or participated in the business world enough to see the landscape to grasp the concepts that I have described, but I"m sure you remember that Martha Stewart had to go to jail for INSIDER TRADING.

Smurf, as you've noticed I'm not good at spelling. I'm not saying that you think you're smarter than you really are. I'm personally weary of the hindsight bias, because I don't want to look as if I've got everything figured out. So if you agree with Art, then you agree with me. I'm not saying this was the cause of the GD, I'm saying it's a possibility. But we shouldn't even be spending time worrying about it because we aren't economists. I admit that I don't know much at all about how the stock market works besides when people want to sell, the price goes down and when people try to buy the price goes up and some other basic things.

Last edited:
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
outsider said:
The lack of a response and the tendency to attempt to band together with an identity, who has said nothing but made an irrational judgment, displays the mental barriers of even intelligent individuals. Your inability to see the possibility is what you and others should question. You may have never lived in a major city or participated in the business world enough to see the landscape to grasp the concepts that I have described, but I"m sure you remember that Martha Stewart had to go to jail for INSIDER TRADING.
Outsider, insider trading is designed to get a person out a single company before its stock goes down so they can buy it up again cheap and make money when it rises once more. How would you apply this to the crash of 1929? It took what? Fifteen years for the market to recover and start making money again? If people couldn't pull out an reinvest in the market, where exactly do you think they invested their money? Nothing was profitable in the 30s and nothing in the 40s until the US went to war. But how could these people have known there would be a war? Do you now want to tell me that the same people who caused the crash caused WWII?

Is there any evidence whatsoever to suggest that any of this actually happened? A good place to start would be a list of however many people you think were involved who all sold enough shares to cause an adequate downturn, managed to pull out without losing anything, and managed to reinvest elsewhere in a manner that made more money than the market would have if it hadn't crashed, while they were still alive.

Having worked for one of the world's largest online companies, i feel that the strategies we imposed on our employees (i was in management) were very much similar to those strategies being used by the govt and the military. We truly kept them in a shroud of confusion. While I was also instrumental in these office politics, I too have been a victim just the same and anyone can be put into this shroud. The corporation is very successful at assessing the maximum value of the employees, and the employees are dependent on the company so it is a lopsided relationship.... blah blah blah... disenfrachised? Yes. But again, I have nothing to gain by telling my story.

All I know is that at some point in the last decade or so the world went through a lot of changes that are completely unexplained by those who are in charge (who should clearly have some sort of explanation). I don't want to sound crazy anymore :tongue2: so here is my opinion on this topic:

YES, I believe that America is poised for world domination, but the American People (in general) will be used to acquire this success, but will not really share in the rewards (although this is what they will want you to think). The reward for the people is freedom, safety and security (things that monetary values cannot be placed, or better referred to as those things that money can't buy). But call me crazy, or call me a visionary, I believe the ultimate goal is social slavery and building the ultimate business machine.

I know I'm gonna be all for monitors and tracking people because it is gonna be marketed as for my protection, but ultimately it is for the protection of those in power.

In 1927, Fritz Lang released a film in Germany that left the audiences in such future shock, they left the theaters. This film was "Metropolis".

Skyhunter
I know what you mean about management outsider. I also agree with almost all the rest too. And it does take an intuitive leap, because you won't find proof, at least not any you can use.

I am also an outsider, with no desire to get inside. I have had a few opportunities, it just goes against my nature. I won't go into specifics, but I have seen and experienced enough to know that the people on the inside are not particularly nice.

Twenty years ago I was in the center of the micro computer revolution. I had such dreams for society because I realized that computers would probably double or triple our productivity. America was leading the way and with our ingenuity and ideals of personal freedom we could settle the world in peace and prosperity.

Now, 20 years later our production is 20 times what it was. 10 times what I predicted.

Where did the wealth from that productivity go?

The world is much worse off now than it was 20 years ago. I still hold onto the belief that computers, especially with the internet can still save mankind. With a computer and an internet connection we can communicate in ways that are unprecedented in the history of mankind. When someone claims something, we can instantly check the source, hear conflicting opinions and research our own conclusions. We can then share those conclusions with others. Information available to so many and so easily shared is going to revolutionize the human race!

Lemmie get the facts right, I know some won't like the referances to the bible and religious beliefs, so just skip over those, but just bear with me.

origins of masonry from beginning:
Nimrod-the first mason, The Egyption mysteries- Isis & Osiris, King Soloman and Hiram the widow's son, The rites of Eleusis, the Dionesian artificers, Gnosticism,

midevil period:The Hashishim, The knigts Templar, the stone mason's guild, the brothers of the rosey cross.

early modern period: admission of "speculative masons" (not simply stone masons), the mother lodge (England 1717)-all other lodges are extended from this one, Illumaniti order (bavaria 1776)-sole prupose is to infiltrate masonry

Modern period (19th century): William Morgan and "anti-masonry"-published a book with all the secrets of masonry in it and then disappeared->who's widow went on to help found the mormon church as one of Joseph Smith's wives (his book and a confession by one of the guys that murdered him later caused a stir in the nation that almost drove masonry off the shores of USA, there was even an anti-mason political party); The Scottish rite and Albert Pike (1880)-> made masonry popular again; the 20th century-masonry's renaissance.

Scottish rite=32 degrees, the 33rd degree is onve level above both scottish and york systems called a "grand soverign inspector general degree"
the York rite=9 degrees
the G stands for generativity

J Edgar Hoover=33
at least 17 presidents have been masons.
Franklin, Paul Revere, Benedict Arnold, Jefferson (not sure), John Adams was a strong anti-mason, Washington denounced masonry on his deathbed because he felt it was a tool to bring the illumaniti into america, Jesse Helms-33, Bob Dole-33, Strom Thurmond-33, Ronald Reagan (honorary mason ie not a high level mason), Gerald Ford-33, Harry Truman-33, Franklin Roosevelt-33, **note, a 33 degree has taken communion out of a human skull, and sworn that they will work for the destruction of law, religion, and government. This is all part of the oaths that they make**

Washington:
13 blocks along the line of symmetry of the pentagram from the white house lies "the house of the temple"- the supreme headquarters of the scottish rite

New World Order:
the masons have been working to establish 2 things, 1. "the destruction of the true and living God from human minds" (I would assume at heart masons go by the bible even though they have lodges for all religions. They prolly mean that they want to replace the people's idea of "the true God" for each religion with their idea of Satan-which they call God.) , and 2. "the establishment of a one-world government and one-world religion."
-Francis Bacon, "The New Atlantis" -> basically a book written with the dream of starting "a new atlantis" in america where masonry and occultism could be practiced openly.

32 long feathers in the wings of the eagle (scottish rite). 32 total feathers (long and short) on the left wing, and 33 on the right. 9 feathers in the tail (York rite)
The unfinnished pyramid is called a "frustrum", capstone is "eye of Horus"
the first 5 levels symbolize all of the york and scottish rite (US masonry), the next 8 are all luciferian (European or "esoteric" masonry), and include as the last step before the capstone... yes that crazy devil himself, lucifer (referred to as the light of limitless nothingness).

Priori Sion: a rosecrecian type group that recently became known to the public in the last 20 years, it could've been completely made up by scholars that want to make a joke or riddle. Apparantly the main objective of this group is to destroy biblical christianity (thats this group's specific job in cooperation with the 1st goal of masonry, other groups are theoretically working to destroy other religions also *masons compartmentalize*) by "prodicing the bones of jesus".
Albert Pike was buried in the house of the temple in Washington DC (supposedly very honorable)-> he was a confederate general, cheif justice of the KKK-BTW this familiar group was started by Albert and another mason, sovereign grand commander of the scottish rite (highest ranking mason in america), supreme luciferian pontiff (the highest ranking satanist in the world), author of "Morals and Dogma". He did so much for masonry people say he "found it in a cabin and left it in a temple". He was a racist, and a war criminal, and the most honored man in masonic history.
After Pike, many more prominent occultists joined forces with masonry:
Arthur Edward Waite-33 -> wrote "the new encyclopedia of masonry" also a member of an occult society called the order of the golden dawn
C.W. Leadbetter-> archbishop of the liberal catholic church->a branch of the theosophical society->grandmother of all new ager movements, he was a pedafile.
Aleister Crowley->bragged about doing over 150 child sacrifices a year, luciferian, he said that he held so many masonic degrees, that an elephant would creak under the weight of all his jewelery (there are more than just 33 degrees, thast just the scottish and york rite systems->the US systems).
W. Wynn Wescott
Manley P. Hall->died in '92, respected as greatly as Pike, wrote hundreds of occult books including "the secret teachings of all ages and countries", was a rosecruician (brothers of the rosey cross)

so masonry is heavily involved with the occult to say the least.
Is masonry a religion?
it requires a belief in a deity, expresses that belief in ritual and prayer, teaches a system of philosophy and ethics, promises salvation "the celestial lodge above"
From "The Monitor" (the ritual masonic workbook) in the state of Tennessee in 1946 had this written in it: "Hindus have Vishnu and Krishna, The Jews have Moses, the Christians have Christ, and the Masons have Hiram"- referring to Hiram abiff, the savior of the masons. He's mentioned 2 or 3 times in the Bible, he's a craftsman and the son of a widow, he works to make the molten sea, and brazen pillars for king Soloman (I don't know, I'm not familiar with this, I'm just reporting almost all of this stuff from my main source, A defector named Bill Schnoebelen who wrote 7 books, "Satanic and voodo high preist","second degree menber of the church of satan", "a new age guru", and 4 more not mentioned in "The light behind freemasony", he's an occultist, channeler (huh?), Knight templar, member of the illumaniti, 90th degree mason (there are more degrees once you move beyond the US system into purely luciferian levels).

Last edited:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/uspresidentasmasons.htm

That site says it is giving just facts about our Presidents and their involvement in masonry...if the information is accurate then it is hard to beleive that it is just a coincidence. Ive read in other places though the information about the common ancestry of most of the presidents.

The Jesuits and some "Black Pope" seem to come up alot in interviews with people playing the whole Mason/Illuminati/New World Order conspiracy angle.

You'd have to assume though there could never be any credible evidence as conspiracy theorists are always looked upon as crazy...the concept in itself though is not so hopelessly unbelievable if you think about it : a group of powerful people allign themselves to control things...

Smurf said:
Take out a one dollar bill, and look at it.

13 original colonies,
13 signers of the Declaration of Independence,
13 stripes on our flag,
13 steps on the Pyramid,
13 letters in the Latin above,
13 letters in "E Pluribus Unum,"
13 stars above the Eagle,
13 bars on that shield,
13 leaves on the olive branch,
13 fruits, and if you look closely, 13 arrows.
And, for minorities: the 13th Amendment.
I ask people, "Why don't you know this?" Your children don't know this, and their history teachers don't know this. Too many veterans have given up too much to ever let the meaning fade. Many veterans remember coming home to an America that didn't care. Too many veterans never came home at all. Share this page with some of your e-mail friends, so they can learn what is on the back of the UNITED STATES ONE DOLLAR BILL, and what it stands for... Otherwise, they will probably never know.

--